|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday October 13, @09:13AM EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
Here's my reply to an opinion peice by Jenni Murray about 2 women who didn't get the embryos when their ex-partner refused it:
A reply to "Cruel, mean spirited and selfish" by Jenni Murray (Friday 3rd October, The Guardian)
Copied to Jenni Murray, Guardian Letters and the Men's Hour Blog
Jenni Murray is presenter of the BBC Radio 4's infamous, sexist Woman's Hour. I run the Men's Hour, a small internet radio programme that attempts to counteract Woman's Hour by presenting men's point of view, something the BBC has no programme for. Both she and the programme are in favour of abortion, and even find excuses for infanticide. So it surprising that she is so worried about keeping some embryos.
Mind you, not surprising when you realise that the central motive in all cases whether embryos, abortion or infanticide is whatever the woman wants. She opens her piece in the Guardian with the sentence "I am - honest - the kind of feminist who is doing her best to instigate a peace process in the battle of the sexes.". Somewhat comparable to "This car was only driven by an old lady - honest guv". In spite of saying she does not think all men are bastards she says that the two men who refused permission to use their embryos would make Jenni ready to go back to the front line. (On the subject of frontlines, I can relate to you one or two anecdotes about the Battle of the Somme, France, 1916, that I heard from a relative who was there. Call me back when any female relative has a tale like those).
Two men, Howard Johnston and Wayne Hadley, agreed to fertilise their wives/partners eggs. The eggs were extracted from the women and fertilised by the men. These embryos remain each woman's only chance to have a child from now on. Although one already has a child. A fact accidentally omitted by Jenni Murray. The other does not have any children. Both have no chance of a child naturally from now on.
In both cases, the relationships split up. The men subsequently refuse permission for the women to use the embryos. A court upheld their right to do so. Jenni Murray emphasises in both cases that the men initially agreed to the fertilisation. Once again we see that any man who agrees to anything ever is held to that forever. "Was there ever a more cruel, mean-spirited, selfish breach of trust between a man and a woman than in the actions of Howard Johnston and Wayne Hadley?" Jenni Murray asks. Well I could suggest the betrayal of Samson by Delilah, the theft of the formula for mustard gas, apparently by Mata Hari, paternity fraud and false accusations of rape have got to come fairly close I would think.
Jenni talks about the pain the potential parents have endured. The man she says only had to do five minutes of fun with a dirty magazine. The woman, she says, has to endure the pregnancy or the invasion of the abortion. She sees no difference between the embryos in the woman and the embryo in the test tube. Therefore Jenni concludes that women's suffering is greater so they should get the embryos. A little sleight of hand of here. These embryos can be poured down the sink without any pain to anyone. Indeed if the women chose to do that, then Jenni Murray would support it, probably even if a surrogate was going to bear the child.
She says this goes to the heart of the debate about fatherhood. She says it is no longer acceptable to have a quick knee-trembler behind the bike sheds and leave the woman holding the baby.". My question is when was it ever acceptable? She's never heard of shot gun weddings and anyway about 90% of men where married and supporting their family when Jenni and I were young.
"Conception is a joint enterprise, whether both agree a child should result or not, and carries enduring responsibility. The Child Support Agency sees to that." Exactly. The women say they would never ask the men for any money. 10 years down the line, if they are unemployed, the CSA will happily pursue the fathers whether or no that mothers want them to. Anyway, you never heard of a woman changing her mind? Quite a lot of men have.
"Bob Geldof made a plea for fathers to be treated equally under the law. We all want fathers to be more involved with their children" List the father's rights groups that Jenni supports. She wants these women to have their babies regardless of whether the men want babies. Obviously Jenni doesn't care if the men are involved with their children. The emotional involvement of is very important to many fathers. Maybe these men do not want a child brought into the world that they aren't involved with. The thought of this would be painful to a lot of men. The child may also want a father's involvement, but Jenni doesn't seem to think that important.
"Running away is not an option whether you're talking embryo, foetus or child." Strange, it seems to be for women. Abortion is called a right and even infanticide is excused as much as possible. Also women regularly adopt children or simply hand them over to social services. There is also baby abandonment. It's now being legalised in a number of countries, so if you want to abandon your baby there's no shame or blame. I don't hear Jenni Murray criticising anyone for that.
"An embryo is not a viable human being, although these women have stated that they see them as their "children". For the men who've walked away, they seem to be no more than blobs of jelly to be done away with without a second's thought for the moral questions this case raises." Jenni is presumably against abortion then? I think not.
"I doubt the putative "fathers" have a heart between them." Since one of the men is quoted as saying it was the most difficult decision of his life, this claim by Jenni clearly is not a serious attempt to see if the men have their reasons for their position. It is not about the men's reasons. It is about her hatred and vilification of these men, and I suspect all men.
Blog
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
...I think the first concern should be making sure they're not destroyed while still in the embryonic stage. I know you're coming at this from a fathers' rights perspective, and I respect that, obviously, but there are facets to this other than mom vs. dad.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
According to the legal agreement entered in with both partners, if one of them wants to remove their name from the agreement then the embryo's have to be destroyed.
It is like mens responsibilities after a woman gets pregnant.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
